The first and most straight forward way is to rape. That is politically incorrect now.

The second way is to consensually persuade the woman to mate with you. The problem is the world are filled with so many other males. Many are richer, smarter, taller, and more handsome.

Well but Tom Cruise, Bill Gates, and Kobe aim for someone higher than our typical target market. Not really. How do you know they want only one? Chinese emperor got 10k chicks and he didn’t even have flat TV and flush toilet.

The market does give more absolute wealth and prosperity to virtually everyone. If there is one thing the market don’t give to those politically powerful is relative wealth and power. The thing is, that’s what gets men laid.

Another problem is that consensually attracting women are often politically incorrect too. Most societies have so many norms prohibiting so many consensual acts for reasons that will be obvious shortly.

So consensually attracting hot babes is not the only thing most males count on.

The third way is then the most common way, namely to separate target market from competitors.

If target prefer Bob, it’s wrong because it’s not love. If target pick Hasan then it’s wrong because polygamy is bad. If target pick Liu Chan, then it’s wrong because prostitution is immoral. If target pick Mr. Tanaka then it’s wrong because hentai demean women. If target pick Jean Claude then it’s wrong because inter religious marriage is bad.

The list goes on and on. Women trafficking is illegal despite consent. No sex outside marriage. No sex for cash (but chocolate and flower is okay because it can signal wealth nevertheless in a spendthrift way). No contract marriage, no polyandry, no bullshit. If the male is honest then he’s arrogant.

Each kid need daddy to spend at least 8 hours a day and 20% of his income no matter how wealthy daddy is to ensure rich dad don’t have 1000 kids. No this. No that.

The limit is just imagination. The proof is faith. It’s useless trying to argue with bigots or working too much to comply with all the norms that any competitors would come up. It just won’t work.

Finally, unless you’re really bad, eventually the girl picks you. Then it’s sacred and a big OK.

http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/traffickingdebate.html

What I mean by trafficking is consensual trafficking. But as you see from the debate above, some feminists insist that trafficking are made illegal despite consent.

My understanding is that ugly feminists simply do not want to compete with cheaper (and often prettier) women from poorer countries. Moreover, poor males do not want their prettiest girls move to richer countries. It’s like smuggling or immigration or globalization in general. Those who don’t sale don’t want to compete overseas.

It seems that trafficking means non consensual for many (while the consensual one is probably called immigration).

Also what I mean by marriage is state approved sexual relationship. The pattern I see in most countries is if the state approve, it’s called marriage, and if the state doesn’t it’s called “sin”. In muslim countries, for example, polygamy and contract marriage counts as marriage and their states approve that.

I believe no consensual sex should be “approved” more than the other. It’s shouldn’t be up to the state. It should be up to individuals. So if prostitution is taxed, so should marriage. If one is illegal so should the other and via versa. That’s what I mean by destroying marriage. Of course, a better phrase would be as Wendy said it, “Get government out of marriage.” No government in the world, west or east, is in this state as far as I know.

Obviously marriage can be very problematic as

http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2758

shows.

Yet information promoting marriage like romance were legal and information promoting free sex like porn is illegal for minor. Also many alternatives to lifelong monogamous marriage is illegal, like prostitution, contract marriage, concubinage and so on.

I know a beautiful female friend that wants a divorce. She can’t unless her husband has a mistake first. Not being rich enough to the next best competitor is not a mistake. Being able to attract other mates however are. Of course this rules favor the less competitive partner of the marriage. This is the most stupid non meritocratic rules I’ve ever seen in any contract.

We are told that when we get married we agreed to be loyal till death due us part. How do they know? Were they there when we write the contract? No. They know because that’s the only kind of contract people can make when get married.

I can spam thousands of forums. I can promote any petition. I can do anything I can help to end or at least discourage marriage ALL over the world.

Of course I know the real reason why religious bigots demand marriage institution is because they cannot get any mate if humans are free to choose their mates AND the terms of their mating.
I bet all those feminists that demand that women should fight as soldiers in front lines are ugly. I partially agree with them. If they’re ugly why not? But why prevent the pretty from being porn star?
Who’s with me?